Here.
Lots of good stuff in there. The Neil deGrasse Tyson complaint is a little frustrating... science education is important and there's something to be said for getting a lot of people to have a broad respect for science even if they don't do it. I'd be happy if a lot of non-economists knew they didn't do economics but maintained a healthy respect for what an economist says about the economy relative to what some journalist says. Still, a lot of good points here.
I don't follow the page actually, but I think a lot of it is funny/pretty/etc. But that's the whole point. Don't like a page that's funny and make the mistake of thinking it's more than that that you're viewing and "liking". Like the joke or the inspirational picture, but know that it's a joke or an inspirational picture and that science isn't done in one-liners with a pretty graphic.
Here's an assertion that I think is largely true but that is sure to piss a lot of people off: John Papola is the internet's "I fucking love science" page for economics. Flashy and visually impressive. Funny. Gets people excited. Piques the interest of people who are genuinely into economic science. But really botches a lot of stuff and smuggles in politics.
Discuss, but know that this is my space and I'll heavily moderate if it needs to happen.
Well, since you're the one starting the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI read some of the discussions between Papola and you, and thought they were fascinating. I never knew that Papola was so well read and could hold his own in a technical economics discussion. I also appreciated his exasperated tone in these discussions, especially because it was accompanied by detailed and to the point replies to your criticisms.
I also think it's important to mention that Robert Skidelsky said:
“Absolutely fair and brilliantly rhymed. It’s not a complete account of Keynes but it seems to be completely right.”
I mean, if even Skidelsky says that the videos give a 'completely right' account of Keynes, then that's a pretty darn strong argument in favor of Papola.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/10/inner-workings-at-the-newshour.html
This may still leave room for there being some minor issues, concerns or problems re Papola's video, but not for anything even close to your criticism of him. Which makes especially the frequency in (with?) which you would try to re-start the discussion with new blog posts (such as this one) quite startling: it seems like you're really truly deeply bothered by Papola and/or what he has done, it really gets your goat on a personal level, but it's not clear why this is.
Anyway, I think Papola's is a huge achievement: he has managed to strike an impressive balance between on the one hand making his videos appealing to a popular audience and on the other hand being fair to and accurately portraying the gist of both sides of the debate (also, the videos are beautifully done in terms of story and production value, and he (and of course Russ ROberts) have done a brilliant job in marketing the video as well).
You are really awful at psycho-analyzing me, so you should probably quit that. You've walked up to the line of the stuff that I get sick of from you. Stick to the arguments, please.
DeleteWe've talked about Skidelsky's endorsement on here before... I've never quite understood it, but I think I partially understand it. Something to remember is that he's commenting on the first video which I've always said is a lot better on the specifics of the theory. As Skidelsky says, the issue is it omits some things. I probably think that has more consequence to the video itself than he does, but that's not a big deal. I've always said the first video substance is good. Anyone who cares what I actually think about Papola's work should know I've said that.
I assume Skidelsky is not endorsing all the editorializing - "top down", "your central plan", etc. - the stuff that lead Glasner (not a Keynesian!) to say "enough already" and brought a lot of criticism for Papola - RIGHTLY.
That framing is what people have gotten out of it, and it's hugely distortionary. Look we showed it in the intro macro class I TAed for (professor's choice - I wouldn't have). It came up with the students about it in the TA sessions. Those lines in those refrains deeply colored their understanding of the arguments, and that's the whole problem - even if the more technical lines were fine.
The technical material, I think, has gotten progressively worse in his subsequent videos and articles.
Anyway, I'll take Glasner and DeLong over Skidelsky any day if the subject is Keynes's economics (as opposed to his life). I don't think it's as clear cut of a case as you are treating it.
re: "Anyway, I think Papola's is a huge achievement: he has managed to strike an impressive balance between on the one hand making his videos appealing to a popular audience and on the other hand"
DeleteRight, but nobody to my knowledge ever challenged that point.
Or this: "(also, the videos are beautifully done in terms of story and production value, and he (and of course Russ ROberts) have done a brilliant job in marketing the video as well)."
Lots of people have disputed your claim that it presents a fair picture of each side.
I think the fact that he presents Keynes/Hayek as a boxing match ALONE as a terribly distorted way of thinking about the two men. The first video had the virtue of at least not presenting them quite as at odds like that.
DK wrote: "I've never quite understood it, but I think I partially understand it. Something to remember is that he's commenting on the first video which I've always said is a lot better on the specifics of the theory."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a crucial point that fatally undermines my use of Skidelsky as an argument in favor of Papola in the dispute between you and him about the second video's lyrics on demand theories.
DK wrote: "As Skidelsky says, the issue is it omits some things."
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, this is phrased a bit oddly. It makes it sound as if Skidelsky means that it is an issue, a problem, that the video omits things. But he doesn't say or imply that. He only says that it is not complete, but he doesnt say or mmean that therefore it is wrong or misleading or something. Au contraire, he explicitly calls it 'completely right'.
Skidelsky says it omits things. You agree? Good. Read the next sentence.
DeleteGeez.
I had read that sentence ("I probably think that has more consequence to the video itself than he does, but that's not a big deal.") and had actually considered pre-emptively writing something about it because I thought you might use it as an argument against my point, but then decided I wouldn't because one can't go on trying to pre-empt everything.
DeleteIn sum though, when you write "As Skidelsky says, the issue is it omits some things." you make it sound like Skidelsky had a problem with the video omitting things (which he didn't), and then when you write after that "I probably think that has more consequence to the video itself than he does" that impression remains, although it gets qualified by saying that you probably thought the omissions were more consequential than he did. So I think the reader gets the impression that Skidelsky thought the fact that the video omits stuff was problematic but that you found it more problematic than he did.
And the simple reality is that he nowhere says or implies that he found it problematic, even though your sentences do or may create that impression.
I really can't do this all day. He raised that issue and he clearly didn't see it as a concern. I agreed that was an issue. I think it's more of a concern.
DeleteI don't know what else you want from me Narrator. This is getting tiresome. It's bad enough you made an issue of it at 12:21. The fact that you are still talking about it is unbelievable to me.
"He raised that issue and he clearly didn't see it as a concern."
DeleteAh, much more innocuous this way than 'As Skidelsky says, the issue is it omits some things.'
Good job on neatly separating the concepts of 'issue' (understood as 'topic') and 'concern' (understood as 'problem') while in your earlier remarks the ambiguity of 'issue' was exactly what had to do the heavy lifting (creating an impression while at the same time leaving room to deny that that was one's intention).
If I smash my laptop I'm billing you.
DeleteAt least buying a new one will grow the economy!
Delete(okay, this really was my last)
:)
Deletere: "(okay, this really was my last)"
Why? This one made me smile - now we're getting somewhere!
"That framing is what people have gotten out of it, and it's hugely distortionary. Look we showed it in the intro macro class I TAed for (professor's choice - I wouldn't have)."
ReplyDeleteThat's unfortunate.
"It came up with the students about it in the TA sessions. Those lines in those refrains deeply colored their understanding of the arguments,"
wow, i didnt realize that it could have such a big effect. (this also opens up more sinister ways in which to use such videos!)
"e: "Anyway, I think Papola's is a huge achievement: he has managed to strike an impressive balance between on the one hand making his videos appealing to a popular audience and on the other hand"
ReplyDeleteRight, but nobody to my knowledge ever challenged that point."
yes, but I'm talking about the *conjunction* ('balance between... on the one hand... on the other...) of mass appeal and fair and accurate technical portrayal. Then it's kind of odd to reply only to one part of the conjunction (the mass appeal part) and say that nobody denies that. I mean, of course, but some people, incl. you, deny the truth of the conjunction (the balance between mass appeal and accuracy etc.)
You really don't have to explain that your claim had multiple parts to it. I promise. That does not need to be explained to any commenters here either. Read the subsequent sentences.
Deletebut then why would you interject by pointing out that that first part of my claim is entirely uncontroversial? I mean, I never said or remotely implied that it wasn't.
Delete::trying not to smash my laptop... trying not to smash my laptop::
DeleteHaha! Ach, and all this could have been avoided if you had just explained why you wrote that odd remark where you did in the first place. Anyway, I'll stop bothering you after the next post.
Delete"I think the fact that he presents Keynes/Hayek as a boxing match ALONE as a terribly distorted way of thinking about the two men."
ReplyDeleteit's about the ideas though, not the men, and it doesnt seem problematic to pit those ideas against each other, as if there's a battle going on. I'm sure that many history of economic thought textbooks as well as other sources would portray it similarly (using terms like 'battle', 'won' etc.)
That rant was awesome!! I didn't click through when you first posted this, because I was so mad at the John Papola stuff.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't clicked through to get to the rant either. Now that I read it, I realize that Daniel's comparing the "I f***ing love science" page with John Papola's videos is even more insulting than I initially thought.
ReplyDelete